Child Transvestism For School Spirit

Hernandez tells EAGnews the day was originally billed as “Gender Bender Day,” but Tippecanoe officials made the name change after she called Principal Jeffrey Krupar to complain.

The Milwaukee mother was not impressed.

“I didn’t have a problem with the title. I had a problem with the activity taking place,” Hernandez says.

She says it’s “ridiculous” and “creepy” to ask elementary boys to come to school dressed as girls, and vice versa, and predicts that having students dress as “transvestites” will distract from the learning process.

The school says this is a “spirit day” activity chosen by the student council, and nobody has to dress like the opposite sex. I agree that it’s ridiculous and creepy. It’s also a highly politicized act in this time and place.

UPDATE: Come on, people, how on earth can we live in the same culture in which we hear every day, all day long, about homosexuality and transgenderism and diversity, and the need to accept these things, and then claim an activity like this is devoid of cultural politics? Thirty years ago, it would have been weird, but larky and innocent. Today? Please.

Gender Bending is not a game. It is very serious business. I think it’s off and so alternative that one actauualy needs to fess up about who and what they are. It is not dress up. It is not play time.

And if I were a parent, I would not want my child exposed to this rather abnormal practice without my express knowledge. It is tough enough manuevereing what kids murmer on and on about. The last thing I need is some strange adult — attempting to decipher its harmlessness to my eight year old. Nor would I want them indoctrinated to the same.

The gender bender issue has resulted in people being killed — it’s no meer opposite sex day. And the school should have known better.

If any of the women I was interested in was a cross dresser or formerly anything else than they are — I would seriously question their veracity.

Many of claim “oohh, How silly of you to be concerned. It’s just play.”

Ever vigilant parents having thought it was nothing have ended up in hospital wards, and morgues. “You will say, Ohh don’t be silly.”

But tomorrow you’ll be calling me out to mourn some kid who was bullied over who know what silliness.

Yeah I agree. This is pretty much how I feel about sports in general. But if some people like to sit en masse in a circle dressed weird and acting like idiots while people run around in circles, shrug.

I’m not sure where exactly this school is coming from, but my high school (11 years ago), had “backward day” and “Mr. High School,” where many people dressed up as the opposite gender for spirit week. I went to a VERY conservative school in an even more conservative area. Both events were completely optional–and very fun. No one ever said anything about homosexuality or saw themselves as cross-dressing as a form of rebellion. So I would be wary about reading into this school’s motives.

This would have been a non-issue in say, the 1940’s . . . There’s nothing inherently deviant about cross-dressing for the sake of fun. The problem is that the more we’ve liberalized our attitudes about various sexual irregularities, the more we’ve become “homophobic” in the literal sense of the word; i.e., we fear that our behavior (or our children’s, in this case) may be construed as gay or otherwise out of the sexual mainstream.

This started before the 1940s, before awareness of “sexual identities,” especially in American society. People are constantly trying to suggest Lincoln was gay, for instance, because it was common then for men to share a bed, or Buchanan, because he was ‘courting’ male friends. Old European customs were for men to kiss eachother. Yet, the more our culture became focused on sex, the more everything was seen as sexual. Victorian-era men were already being attacked as being effeminate by Italian Futurists, to whom being a man meant being virile, masculine, macho. Women in turn, were increasingly required to wear makeup for men’s taste. Heightened gender roles are really a product of 20th century mores.

At any rate, I agree with the conclusion of the original article that some kids might feel uncomfortable with this, and it would have been a good idea for the administration to nix it as an “official” day, for that reason alone. I’m not really concerned with the gender politics involved.

Am I missing something? I agree that school spirit days (however ridiculous) did commonly include a day where the kids would dress in clothes of the opposite sex. But it worked and it was funny precisely because everyone understood there are clear differences between the sexes, which is precisely what all of the political stuff of today tends to deny (gay marriage / parenting / gender theory / etc. )

Isn’t the term ‘gender bender’ sometimes (primarily?) now used for queer theory / transgressive theory topics? I don’t guess I know for sure, not running in those circles, but that is what I assumed when the term is used today….

My earlier post was sarcastic, but do we really want to be introducing grade-school children to ‘gender bending’? That seems very different than a H.S. spirit day. The use of the term ‘gender bender’ surely had a very political element to it.

I bet they were also planning to show ‘The Crying Game’ for the afternoon movie time for the kindergartners…

“If it had not been for the name, I could see kids having a funny silly such day — But that name denotes something else and hence reflects the activity is intended to breech territory reseverved for parents for children so young.”

I agree. I don’t think that “gender bender” is a phrase that elementary school-aged kids would think of on their own. However, something like “opposite day” would be very age appropriate for them. “Gender bender” sounds too infused with political overtones.

My point is, that if the people who are upset at the concept just took a deep breath and actually witnessed what “opposite sex day” or “gender bender day” or “switch it up day” or whatever any particular school calls the spirit day where kids can come to school dressed in clothes that are more commonly worn by the opposite sex—they’d see that from the kids’ perspective, it has nothing to do with sexuality or gender identity. My daughter’s generation has no clue about the culture wars over women wearing pants or the length of men’s hair. In their day, both men and women have tattoos and wear earrings, and so what? Their parents were born after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Their parents went through school after Title IX.

It’s not like the post-millenials don’t have a concept of gender or sexuality, but they just don’t see it in pre-1970 terms. The “signals” that trigger the response of the upset mother in Milwaukee (or some of the upset people on this thread), literally do not register with today’s children. They didn’t grow up with rigid gender roles or appearances, and neither did their parents. FWIW, the “out” kids at my daughter’s middle school (public school, rust belt, poor/working class) don’t dress or look any different than the “straight” kids. It’s entertaining to see the reactions in this generation to what was supposed to be the signaling of the past; my daughter can’t understand why Liberace’s stage dress was supposed to be “gay”, but Elvis’ stage dress was not—she just sees sequins and capes, and “gay” doesn’t enter her mind either way (offshoot of a conversation we had after the umpteenth “Behind the Candelabra” preview).

Gender conventions didn’t end in the 1970s. Men today still can’t wear dresses, leggings, or makeup. For a long time they couldn’t even wear tighter pants, but skinny jeans became a fad again for a while; I guess they’re out again. (And men have wore leggings historically). Women are actually given a lot more freedom in this regard, they can dress more ways than men without comment, although social expectations usually keep them from diverting from the norm. Most women aren’t going to even think about cutting their hair short like a boy — although they might have a couple of decades ago when it was a fashion. A lot of girls still feel pressured to wear makeup.

Crossing these gender conventions is still a flag about someone’s sexuality, even in cases where it shouldn’t be, and maybe in ways that it wasn’t before, because people are more conscious of sexual orientation. Short hair may be a flag for ‘lesbian’ now where before it was just tomboyish or even cute.

And on the other side of this, I’ve come across a lot of young gays and lesbians who transgress these conventions in the same way they always have. That is, there are still young gay men dressing more flamboyant. There are still young lesbians dressing butch.

There have also been a lot of other conventions about dress that have nothing to do with sexuality. When I was growing up in the 90s and decided I didn’t want to shave and just wanted to let my beard grow out naturally, I got a lot of flak from both adults and kids in my peer group. The “normal” thing to do was to either shave every day or, in rare cases, to keep a trim beard. Its only recently that men have been allowed to go “au naturel” with their facial hair without getting comment for it.

Society didn’t really become freer because women started wearing pants and for a short time men started wearing long hair.

One person out of some 60 odd comments raised it, but I’ll reiterate the central theme. Again, Cross Dressing is NOT ‘Transvestism’. Not even close folks.

And really? CrossDressing happens to have been present at the very foundations of our Western Culture. Yes indeed. Greco-Roman drama would not exist w/o it. Ditto for much of classically staged Shakespeare. It’s even present in Gilbert & Sullivan as a ‘lark’ & tittle for the middle brow Victorians too. It’s there also at the very foundations of the English and American vaudeville theater too.

So no, neither Sadie Hawkins Day, nor ‘Powder Puff’ football squads nor ‘backwards’ days at school have been demonstrably proven to add much to the general depravity or degeneracy of either the children participating nor the ‘permissive’ culture allowing same. Geez we saw this way back when that nice Southern lad Gomer Pyle, USMC was on TV too. And that talented Liberace played everywhere. And the school play was selections from ‘Cabaret’. Oh wait a minute… Cheers, ‘VJ’

I think the answer is written in most of the posts. Opposite Day is merely dressing up as a this or a that. Gender Bender is not cross dressing. IOt denotes something quite different. I think if that is not clear from posts, even of those who think its fine. I am going to encourage you to look it up.

As I said previously, if this had been “Opposite Day” I might have Mmmm’d a bit. But gender bending is not just dressing up as a member of the opposite sex might. It has a specific reference to role reversal — that is not merely dressing up for play or fun as the opposite sex.

There is a move here to ‘dress up’ sexual education and diversity indoctrination as something quite innicent. I think this is true for ethnic and skin color — but sexual indoctrination is guided and determined primarily by parents and even though I am single.

I will fight to defend a parents right to guide their child in such matters — especially in elementary school argueably the most sensitive and vulnerable of one’s formative learning — key word learning.

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with goofing off and dressing like the opposite sex–like many have pointed out, it’s been part of our cultural landscape since forever, but I do think it highlights something that is very, very deformed about our culture.

The culture wars have done some real damage in that they have politicized things that really have no political intent, and they have sexualized things that have no sexual intent.

Both sides have created this problem. The permissives demand that they be able to march in the streets dressed in drag and in leather as part of community gay pride celebrations, and the conservatives yipe about degeneracy in the streets. There are probably lots of other examples where one side or the other demanded the other side approve of something they weren’t comfortable with and now we have this tit-for-tat where everybody can bring things to a halt by being offended.

As Freud said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” And sometimes cross-dressing is just a prank. But Rod is correct–not anymore, because some humorless scold will take advantage of the fact that cross-dressing, in some contexts and by some people, is a political and/or sexual statement.

In this hyper-polarized culture, kids end up paying a price when normal things become sexualized. This is just one example.

I just thought of another example–Halloween. When I was a kid it was the highlight of the year. We would spend weeks agonizing about what to be, and moms would improvise costumes from things around the house and what they would find at the dime store.

Older kids would be into the gruesome stuff–mummies (toilet paper and ketchup), witches, devils, monsters. Now that is right out because some Evangelicals claim it is sinful. Every mom’s last-minute go-to costume is now right out because you can’t dress kids up as gypsies or hobos anymore–that would be offensive to the homeless or to the Romany people.

Halloween is fraught now, because if you go one way the conservatives are offended, and if you go the other the liberals are offended. So kids dress up as Disney princesses and superheros and the only winners are the companies that rake in the profits when parents have to buy a costume licensed by the Disney corporation.

“Come on, people, how on earth can we live in the same culture in which we hear every day, all day long, about homosexuality and transgenderism and diversity, and the need to accept these things, and then claim an activity like this is devoid of cultural politics? Thirty years ago, it would have been weird, but larky and innocent. Today? Please.”

If this was a high school, yes. Maybe even a middle school. But you are talking about an idea floated by a group of ten year olds. Yes, the teachers probably gave them ideas, but it was most likely a list of ideas that has been passed down for thirty odd years and never had anything to do with gender identity politics.

Chances are that the kids were debating between this one and booger day.

Sometimes, Rod, a cigar really is just a cigar. You don’t have to go seeking out liberal demons to exorcise from the schools – and in fact, make yourself look rather foolish to the vast majority of people who aren’t over thinking it. You’ll end up looking exactly the same way as the people who rail against any public mentions of Christmas or obsess over the intricacies of “Hispanic” vs “Latino” or have to start using made up pronouns to avoid “sexism.”

But gender bending is not just dressing up as a member of the opposite sex might. It has a specific reference to role reversal — that is not merely dressing up for play or fun as the opposite sex.

Can you explain? Please understand, I’m not being snarky or trying to bait you; I’m really trying to understand this line of thinking. What do you mean by role reversal, and why do you think it is bad? Where are you drawing the boundaries?

I ask because I’m 46—I entered kindergarten the year Title IX was passed. I remember the uproar about girls joining Little League (when an Alton IL girl joined, her family received death threats over the phone). Now you’d be hard pressed to find a girl who hasn’t been involved in organized sports (remember: back then, boys teams were the only game in town).

Flash forward to 1988. I’m a first-year electrical apprentice on a jobsite in central Illinois. At that time, I was the only woman out in the field (another woman who had already “topped out” took a job with a utility, and the other one took a maintenance job)—I was the first woman most of the men (local hands, in any trade) had ever worked with. A few weren’t too happy about it. Some bricklayers invited a retiree to “come for lunch”—he was basically brought in to curse me out. He was very elderly, walked with a cane, and hated my guts. Called me every vile name in the English language, told me I deserved to die, told me my family deserved to die, told me he hoped I’d die painfully and miserably (made a few suggestions along those lines while he was at it)….he was actually foaming at the mouth, spittle and all. Beet red face. Everyone was silent, including me. I was a newbie; I didn’t want to say anything that would get me in trouble—I took my apprenticeship very seriously (keep your eyes open, your mouth shut, and your nose to the grindstone was my motto. It served me well, but the “mouth shut” part ended the day I topped out, LOL! But I digress…) Anyway, after a half-hour (our lunch break) listening to me being excoriated, insulted, and pointed out as the cause of the fall of civilization (yes, really. I had no idea I was that busy!), the brickies walked him back to his car, job finished. Still no one said anything.

And I felt…angry, but more confused than angry. I felt sad for this old man; sad for his shameful behavior, sad that he apparently didn’t have anything positive in his life. (I wouldn’t have had that reaction to someone my own age—I was raised to respect the elderly, and this man was behaving in a way completely unworthy of respect….and he didn’t seem to be addled, just hateful.) But….to this day, I’ve never been able to understand just why my presence provoked that reaction, in this guy, or in the ones to follow over the years. I was raised to believe that—male or female—holding a job and bringing home a paycheck was an honorable thing. Learning and developing oneself was an honorable thing. Taking pride in one’s work was an honorable thing. Yet to this guy, my gender precluded all that.

I’m just trying to figure out where that comes from. Is it an ethnic thing? (you mentioned diversity, and all the people I’ve encountered from childhood on who had an issue about girl’s or women’s “place” were white people of Anglo-Saxon or German heritage. I’ve noticed that their social codes/cues are different from how I was raised.) Is it a fundamentalist thing? (that’s foreign territory to me also).

Understand, I don’t encounter that attitude often; I don’t move in the circles where I’d be likely to. I’m the norm within my world—and that world isn’t coastal educated elites, so I don’t know where the “indoctrination” part is coming in (they call where I live “flyover country”, and don’t mean it ironically).

If you want to know where that comes from, start with Theodore Roosevelt’s comments on the subject. He felt women were as capable as men, but that society needed good mothers, and jobs in physical labor like factory work wasn’t conducive towards the role of a mother. To him, it was also also okay for women before marriage to do those type of jobs, but once a woman was married she should stop doing it and leave it to the husband.

So, Roosevelt started attacking feminists, who he believed were encouraging factory work for married women, and said the loss in respect for the job of the mother would harm the civilization (and, in his terms ‘the white race’).

The elderly guy was probably old enough to remember Roosevelt and others like him.

I don’t know that its an ethnic thing.

That old man seems like he had serious emotional issues, but the behavior of the younger men who invited him over to berate you sounds more egregious to me.

Women in turn, were increasingly required to wear makeup for men’s taste.

I used to believe that. But I’ve lived long enough to learn, women wear make-up because they like it, and the greatest fans are other women, comparing their own make-up to each other’s. Men have darn little to do with it. A lot of men used to object to their wives using make-up, but the wives did anyway because they loved it.

Well yea I agree with your point in principle, most men I know tend to prefer women not to wear makeup. In high school they would complain about girls discovering makeup, saying they looked better before. Its women who choose to wear it.

But wearing makeup still in a round about way ends up being about sexuality — women still feel they’re unattractive if they don’t wear it. The media reinforces the idea that not wearing makeup is butch. Even some conservatives reinforce it (unfortunately), when they criticize feminists like Sandra Fluke for choosing to go without it.

I should say that, even though I suggested it wasn’t, I also think the fashion for men not wearing beards is connected to the modern focus on sexuality. The whole thing began around the turn of the century, around the same time as Italian Futurism and the whole emphasis on male virility. Clean-shavenness was considered to present youthful vigor, and attractive to women. By contrast, beards were popular in the “effeminate” Victorian era, in which youthful vigor wasn’t as valued because sexuality was de-emphasized.

But its not really clearly a gender convention in the usual sense. By other standards, shaving facial hair isn’t really “masculine.”

I hated days like this, when I was in school, but I doubt this one is worth all the insinuating political significance being cast upon it. The student council is doing what student councils have always done. Let’s keep our adult anxiety closets out of it.